The defendant shall be innocent.

1. When the defendant, who was his wife, had conflictd with D and one other, surrounding the inheritance, etc. of the deceased C, he had installed the deceased C's wife in a pro-Japanese with his will to open the graves of the deceased C, which he volunteered with, and provided services to, the deceased C, without the consent of the above D, to arbitrarily excavate the graves of the deceased C, which he had been in his wife, and to move to the Defendant's mountain, without the consent of the above D. On November 12, 2010, the defendant arbitrarily excavated the deceased C's remains in his wife, which had been in his wife, and then buried the deceased C's remains into the former North Korean WarF with the new graves created by the defendant.

2. The purport of the judgment of the court is that the crime of excavation of a grave shall be punished only in cases where the grave is excavated in violation of the religious order of the body even if a person who is not authorized or authorized to do so with respect to the grave, and therefore, the illegality of the act is excluded in cases where a person who is authorized to protect, serve, manage, and dispose of the grave without permission, or a person who obtains permission from the person who is duly authorized by him/her, finds it excavation in accordance with the religious and customary order of the body.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1190 delivered on February 10, 1995, etc.) In the case where a husband who is the spouse of the deceased and a child are alive, as in the case of this case, the Republic of Korea has the tradition that the husband is the husband and the deceased was the principal of the deceased even after the husband was permanently living and the deceased was laid down, and there is a tradition that the deceased was the principal of the husband, and the person who exercises the right, duty, etc. for funeral services, etc. for the deceased under Article 2 subparag. 16 of the Funeral Services, etc. Act, i.e., the person with the top priority of the relative is the spouse, and the defendant has the right to manage and dispose of the deceased's remains or graves. In addition, there is room to deem that the defendant, as the husband of the deceased, has the right to manage and dispose of the deceased's remains or graves. In addition, the defendant requests the deceased's graves on November 12, 2010 to leave the